Right to Protest

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, a national nonprofit civil liberties orga- nization, is deeply committed to protecting the constitutional freedoms of every American and the integral human rights of all people through its extensive legal and educational programs. The Institute provides its legal services at no charge to those whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms. COPYRIGHT © 2017 THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow sub- missively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to 1 those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dis- senting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972). Among the greatest and most precious of our constitutional rights is the right to free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment and rendered applicable to all states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Along with the constitutional right to peacefully assemble, freedom of speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations. Living in a representative democracy such as ours means that each person CONSTITUTIONAL has the right to stand outside the halls of government and express his or Q&A her opinion on matters of state without fear of arrest. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. It gives every American the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It ensures, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”1 As Newton and Collins elaborate: “Petitioning” has come to signify any nonviolent, legal means of encouraging or disapproving government action, whether directed to the judicial, executive or legislative branch. Lob- bying, letter-writing, e-mail campaigns, testifying before tribunals, filing lawsuits, supporting referenda, collecting sig- natures for ballot initiatives, peaceful protests and picketing: all public articulation of issues, complaints and interests designed to spur government action qualifies under the petition clause, even if the activities partake of other First Amendment freedoms.2 THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST 2 CONSTITUTIONAL Q&A Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps, our government officials—both elected and appointed—have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it little more than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In the process, government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to be seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say. Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the homes and offices of Con- gressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through “free speech zones,” electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard. Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say. If Americans are not able to peacefully assemble outside of the halls of government for expressive activity, the First Amendment has lost its meaning. If “we the people” cannot stand peacefully outside of the Supreme Court, the Capitol, the White House or anywhere else within THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST the public sphere, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, as are the rights and liberties we cherish as Ameri- 3 cans. THE CASE OF HAROLD HODGE The case of Harold Hodge is a particularly telling illustration of the way in which the political elite in America have sheltered themselves from all correspondence and criticism. On a snowy morning on January 24, 2011, Harold Hodge walked to the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building with a sign around his neck. The 3’ x 2’ placard read: “The U.S. Gov. allows police to illegally murder and brutalize African Americans and Hispanic people.” Hodge, a 45-year-old African-American, stood silently at attention in front of the building displaying his message. There weren’t many passersby, and he wasn’t blocking anyone’s way. However, after a CONSTITUTIONAL few minutes, Hodge was approached by a police officer for the Supreme Q&A Court. The officer informed Hodge that he was violating a law prohibiting expressive activity in and around the Supreme Court building3 and asked him to leave. Hodge, steadfast in his commitment to peaceably exercise his right to assemble and petition his government, politely refused. Over the course of some 35 minutes, several more police officers gathered and began to slowly circle Hodge. After ordering Hodge two more times to disperse, THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST the officers placed Hodge under arrest, handcuffing his hands behind his back and leading him to a holding cell within the Supreme Court build- 4 4 ing. Hodge is not the only person to be arrested for demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court building. Anti-death penalty demonstrators have been arrested for unfurling a banner on the Supreme Court steps.5 In October 2011, Dr. Cornel West, the Princeton University philosopher and activ- ist, was arrested on the steps of the Supreme Court while protesting the influence of corporate money on the political process.6 In January 2008, 34 demonstrators protesting the indefinite detention of inmates at Guan- tanamo Bay were arrested for demonstrating outside the Supreme Court. D.C. Superior Court Judge Wendell P. Gardner Jr. stated that most of those demonstrators would be sentenced to probation, but that he would perhaps jail those who had prior convictions for civil disobedience so that they would stop doing “the same thing over and over.”7 CONSTITUTIONAL Q&A This desire of government officials to insulate themselves from those ex- ercising their First Amendment rights—whether it is a single protester or a crowd of thousands—stems from an elitist mindset that views themselves as different, set apart somehow, from the people they have been appointed to serve and represent. It is nothing new. FREE SPEECH ZONES The law under which Harold Hodge was prosecuted was enacted by Congress in 1949. Since then, interactions with politicians have become increasingly staged and distant. Press conferences and televised speeches now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents. There also has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protes- tors at political events from interacting with public officials. Perhaps the most egregious instance of imposing a free speech zone upon protesters occurred in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention, where Boston Police constructed a cage of Jersey walls and chain link THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST fences out of sight of the convention center into which protesters were huddled. After seeing the designated area, Judge Douglas Woodcock 5 stated, “[o]ne cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.”8 Such an area is obviously not designed to foster the peoples’ right to free speech, to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. THERE CAN BE NO FREE SPEECH WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SPEAKS IN A LANGUAGE OF FORCE As constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead has warned: There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force. What is this language CONSTITUTIONAL of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Q&A Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kev- lar vests.9 Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force.10 Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics.11 Intimidation tactics. Brutality.12 Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amend- ment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo. This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Fer- guson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was in turn met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.13 For example: • A decade earlier, the New York Police Department engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST Protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” 6 That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million in a lawsuit that resulted in the larg- est protest settlement in history.14 • Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers gathered in North Da- kota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.15 • In 2017, this militarized intimidation reared its ugly head in the university town of Charlottesville, Va.,16 where protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their opposition at a Ku Klux Klan rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police.

Load more